good news for liberals....

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

Ridiculous again. 

Truthful again. I get that you're desperate to defend your bad actions of the past but that doesn't make what i said any less true. that's why our system has 'obstain' built right into it. Hell your buddies the libs have used that many times in the past when harper was around.

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

 

If both options are bad, but one is better than the other, not voting is dumb. 

Nope. It sends the message that these people are not acceptable and they DON'T have a mandate. that's why voter turn out is always published.

Look at the ontario lesson - voters sent a brutally clear message to the ndp and the libs that what they were putting forward was utterly unacceptable. They didn't vote for ford - they just didn't vote for the libs or ndp.

And we saw that federally in the past when the PC fell apart - conservatives just did not vote for them. Period. IT's not like they went over to the libs. They just didn't vote PC.  (some did go to the bloc who formed opposition).

That's how it works  You DO NOT give a mandate to someone who's unacceptable.

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

I'd prefer less bad than more bad.

There is no more bad than corruption and selling the country out to the chinese. That's what you voted FOR. NEITHER of the other candidates were THAT bad.

SO what you said is "This IS acceptable. I WILL support justin and give him a mandate because i believe he is a reasonable choice". 

That is what you did.

Our system is NOT decide to just vote blindly like that - if it was voting would be mandatory. You have the RIGHT to NOT give your blessings to anyone on the ballot. You had a choice and you chose to give your support to justin.

NOw your'e ashamed and trying to justify it - but there IS NONE.

[BeaverFever]

5 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Says the guy who already proved he doesn't understand this stuff   sorry to burst your bubble.

Side question, have you even read Keynes?

Entirely true. And not surprising. As i noted spending like that often does. The ndp found that out in bc AND of course bob rae is the more famous example.

You have to have very specific targeted spending for it to work - if you create a 'false economy' by paying people for things that didn't REALLY need to happen you make it worse.

That's why harper insisted on 'shovel ready' projects only when he did it, and did it for a limited time.

Debt And they sold a SHIT TONNE of bonds.  But ww2 is what did it - the "new deal' did not. And ww2 was not just random infrastructure spending.  It also wasn't very healthy for the economy in the long run - massive debt, thousands of working men taken out of the economy (many permanently), it's not a great way to break a recession. But it is what did it.

Well MANY university and people who started a business will tell you it did not pay for itself at all nor did it boost the economy (turns out those degrees in lesbian dance theory don't actually pay well). 

So its a risk.  People are in the business of taking risks from time to time. Gov'ts really shouldn't be.

As i did say there are occasionally times when you don't worry about the budget being balanced. Recessions for example, that kind of thing. But during normal or good times there's no need for it. IF you're spending more than taxes and income would allow for then you're either spending on things you shouldn't be or you're not taxing enough. In most cases its the former.

There are many examples.  Canada is one. For many many years we had balanced budgets most of the time, except for the wars.

Here - take a look

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/blogs/a-really-quick-history-of-canada-s-federal-debt

we did. Sorry sparky - you kind of blew that one

You don’t know anything about this subject. In an earlier thread around tue time you first showed up in this forum you even tried to call right wing neoliberalism that replaced Keynesian economics as Keynesian. 

Yes I went to university and macroeconomics was a course in my program curriculum which included a comparison if Keynes and the right wing neoliberalism that replaced it  

Keynesian economics was the generally accepted economic theory by Republicans and Democrats alike that ruled from the 1930s through the 1970s aka the west’s golden era of historically unprecedented economic growth and it certainly DID advocate for governments spending and regulation of business activity   That’s a fact of history like it or not 

Bob Rae:  well there is such a thing called the “overton window”  In politics this is the range of ideas that a population is willing to accept  Contrary to popular belief an elected leader once in office cannot simply enact what policies they want they are constrained by the overton window  in early 90s Ontario during the worst global economic downturn since the depression the cards were stacked against him as the incumbent anyway and by this time neoliberalism was the new accepted orthodoxy of the business elite, universities the mainstream media and so on. Anyone not worshipping the book of Thatcher-Reagan was considered a communist. Rae as a NDP was not a convert to the new religion. He therefore faced a business revolt known as a capital strike where business leaders deliberately withheld investment and even took out ads in foreign newspapers telling people not to invest in Ontario which is like economic treason IMO  The overton window of the time required belief in neoliberalism  Heck if the business leaders all believed that wearing a purple tie on a Tuesday was bad for the economy and the premier did that anyway it would have the same effect. Rae might have been able to hang in if he stuck to his union base but chickened out and backpedaled into the mushy middle losing support from his own people    

Transportation Infrastructure really needs to happen  hospitals and schools really need to happen  Dying in wars overseas maybe didn’t really need to happen economically speaking but it still worked. And the people who earn that money spend on genuine consumption of goods and services not artificial ones so it’s not an artificial economy  there’s a real economy and the government is just juicing it a little  private enterprise doesn’t fill potholes or refurbish sewer pipes, government does and we’ve been neglecting those responsibilities for a long time  

They wanted shovel ready projects because they wanted to get the money out the door and as many people working as quickly as possible. They didn’t have years to waste money on projects that still had to go through years of planning and permits that would be pointless.  They were trying to mitigate a recession not climb out of the Great Depression

Yeah selling bonds that’s what almost all government debt is: bonds sold to investors  Balanced budgets and zero government debt means fewer sources for the bonds needed in your investment portfolio or your mutual funds portfolio. But yet bonds are essential components of almost all investments  Investors and portfolio managers want to buy government bonds from advanced economies like Canada even when they are offered at extremely low rates of return because they are the safest and most guaranteed investments available. 
 

Ww2 and new deal were back-to back double boost to the economy for the same reason 

You completely missed my point that the economy grows only when borrowing occurs.  If everyone spends only what they earn the economy by definition cannot grow and people would not be able to make major purchases like homes, universities education cars etc.  We expect people to borrow responsibly for those things not pay cash in full and naturally we should expect government would do likewise.  It’s not a risk for government to borrow because a government with a sovereign currency can’t become unemployed or lose its source of income and government never dies.
 

With your link t doesn’t say Canada ran balanced budgets it says the cumulative net debt was small in absolute dollars before the 1930s-1940s. And it’s the Fraser institute’s usual slight of hand with numbers to advance right wing arguments:
 

First it doesn’t adjust the historical deficit amount to today’s dollars so yeah net debt of $314 million in 1913 sounds small but it’s the equivalent of $8.13 billion today…still extremely small compared to today’s debt but just pointing out the misdirection here  

Next the first chart doesn’t doesn’t show the debt relative to the size of the existing so a debt of 1 penny back in the 1800s sounds great if you don’t know that the entire economy was the size of nickel back then. The link barely mentions GDP at all and deliberately hides the fact that the size of the economy has grown exponentially over the decades-mostly during the era when debts were highest 
 

Third:  Nobody want to go back to living they way people lives when there was so little public spending…not even you. Prior to the era of “big spending” that commenced in the 1930s a significant proportion of the population (probably most) were “sick poor and ugly” as historians like to describe people who lived prior to the modern era.  There was little to no public infrastructure such as  sanitation, water, electricity, etc.  There was no public healthcare, and minimal schooling. People who lived in rural areas produced their own food, water and necessities or they lived in firetrap urban slums and adults and children alike worked dangerous sweatshop type jobs 10-12 hours a day, 6-7days a week with little or no workplace protections. There were few if any building codes or standards. People frequently died during what we would now call middle age, or in childhood from any number of rampant diseases and ailment’s Government programs changed all that  Check out this 1930s era PSA about housing reforms to address the 2/3rds of Americans living in slums  Nobody wants to go back to that  

  
 

In summary all you’ve shown with your link is that the cumulative debt was lower nearly 100 years ago when everyone was sick poor and ugly and living the way people do today in the third world.   But you still haven’t shown any example of any country consistently running balanced budgets EVER much less in the modern era. 

Edited May 11, 2023 by BeaverFever

[Moonbox]

21 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Truthful again. I get that you're desperate to defend your bad actions of the past but that doesn't make what i said any less true. that's why our system has 'obstain' built right into it. Hell your buddies the libs have used that many times in the past when harper was around.

Just saying your natter is "truthful" doesn't make it so.  "Obstain" isn't the word you're looking for either, so good job.  ?

25 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Nope. It sends the message that these people are not acceptable and they DON'T have a mandate. that's why voter turn out is always published.

No mandate if turnout is low...got it. 

That's why Harper won a majority mandate in 2011 with near-record low voter turnout.  It's always a pleasure to watch you bluster cluelessly like this.  ?

25 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Look at the ontario lesson - voters sent a brutally clear message to the ndp and the libs that what they were putting forward was utterly unacceptable. They didn't vote for ford - they just didn't vote for the libs or ndp.

Doug Ford was, I'm sure, was mighty pleased with the voter turnout.  It handed him a sweeping majority and a strong mandate to govern for the next 4 years.  What a message.  As for the Liberals, well their message was received back in 2018 when the Conservatives (after losing more elections than I care to remember) finally got their act together and ran a serious campaign.  How did they win?  By not being loud mouthed buffoons.  Doug Ford let Kathleen Wynne and the McGuinty Liberals' record speak for itself and restrained themselves from saying the stupid shit that the previous candidates failed to avoid.  

[CdnFox]

12 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

You don’t know anything about this subject.

I know a great deal about this subject.

 

12 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Yes I went to university and macroeconomics was a course in my program curriculum which included a comparison if Keynes and the right wing neoliberalism that replaced it  

So - never read keynes, just a comparison.  Thought so. As for your education - see if you can get your money back, it looks like you got ripped off.

12 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

 

Bob Rae:  well there is such a thing called the “overton window”  

 

Yeah - no   Sorry kiddo but not only is that an inappropriate use of the term overton window a leader can pretty much do as they please as long as they get results. As many other gov'ts have proved.

bob rae had a number of choices. The choices he made made the recession deeper and longer.

And hospitals for the sake of hospitals etc etc are not actually a good thing. You have to plan.

12 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

 

They wanted shovel ready projects because they wanted to get the money out the door and as many people working as quickly as possible.

Nope there were TONNES of projects that provinces and such WANTED to do but he was adamant. He could have gotten stuff out the door just as fast.

But - 'shovel ready' meant that the provinces already really believed the projects were necessary and beneficial in the short term. they weren't "fake" projects just to get people working which we saw more of in the states for example - and with much worse results there.

The idea was not to spend a dime that wouldn't have been spent anyway by the provinces over the next three years - basically moving the projects forward as a bridge over the downtimes while taking some pressure off the provinces during the recovery as they now didn't have to spend as much money to get needed projects done.

And it kicked ass - it wasnt the only 'infrastructure' trick he pulled of course but it worked very well.

22 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

But yet bonds are essential components of almost all investments  I

Great - our investors should buy them from other countries and bring the interest payments back here!

And gov'ts are never without debt (well - excpet alberta).  As i said, but you can't comprehend, sometimes you run a deficit. During economic recessions or the like for example.  So there'll always be a little debt. But - a small amount is one thing, a huge amount like we have now is insane.

12 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

 

Ww2 and new deal were back-to back double boost to the economy for the same reason 

So you admit the new deal didnt' get it done.  What were there - three of them? Four?

12 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

You completely missed my point that the economy grows only when borrowing occurs.

Well that's just a lie i'm afraid. The economy grows strong when there's no borrowing. Has many many times in our history.

Hell - harper balanced the books and the economy was doing fine - it did worse when justin started borrowing excessively.

The economy does not need borrowing to grow.  So i didn't miss your point - it was just wrong,

12 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

 

With your link t doesn’t say Canada ran balanced budgets it says the cumulative net debt was small in absolute dollars before the 1930s-1940s.

So - you figured they borrowed massive amounts of money but the net debt didn't increase.

You're an !diot   I tell you what - you tell me which of those pre war years they borrowed massive amounts of cash like you suggested LOL

12 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

 

And it’s the Fraser institute’s usual slight of hand with numbers to advance right wing arguments:

Ahhh yes - must be that racist math.

The chart clearly shows that gov'ts weren't borrowing money in any significant amounts at all prior to the wars - and then not much. we got by just fine till Pierre trudeau got in.

12 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Third:  Nobody want to go back to living they way people lives when there was so little public spending…

So now you admit that there wasn't any borrowing

12 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

 

not even you. Prior to the era of “big spending” that commenced in the 1930s a significant proportion of the population (probably most) were “sick poor and ugly”

You'd fit right in.

But at the end of the day we're not talking about spending are we. We're talking about deficits.

Chretien ran close to zero deficits for years thanks to mulroney's gst and free trade deal. Sure - all his surpluses he stole from the ui fund but even accounting for that he was at least very CLOSE to balanced. And we still spent.

Harper was balanced for his first two (three?)  years before the recession hit - and then within a short time had us back to balance - didn't stop spending. He actually increased transfers.

So you're wrong on the face of it.

In summary - virtually everything you said was wrong and demonstrably so with modern examples to look at.

 

You failed to understand that chart, you failed to undrestand economics and your claim that the economy cannot grow with zero spending is proven false by both liberal and conservative govt's.

Was that course you took from the institute of facebook by any chance ? 

 

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Just saying your natter is "truthful" doesn't make it so.  "Obstain" isn't the word you're looking for either, so good job.  ?

It makes it as truthful as your  'ridiculous' makes it not truthful  

Oh and did i make a typo? Oh dear.  what a shame your arguments have reduced you to being a grammar nazi 

2 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

No mandate if turnout is low...got it. 

Oh good - glad you're learning.  (oh ... should have been 'if there is'  i believe ,)

2 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

That's why Harper won a majority mandate in 2011 with near-record low voter turnout. 

He won a majority. But it was noted at the time turn out was very low and it was considered a caution that people were not giving him a license to do everything.  And he did hold back on a number of issues.

That's how it works. If you get strong voter turn out with strong percent of the vote you know people will support you. But if you get a crappy turn out with a crappy percent... well, you better be careful.

Winning a majority of a very small turn out means something - as the left was very vocally noting at the time  

2 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

 

It's always a pleasure to watch you bluster cluelessly like this.  ?

Always a pleasure to watch you crash and burn when you think you've made a point and it turns out you screwed it up entirely

2 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Doug Ford was, I'm sure, was mighty pleased with the voter turnout.  It handed him a sweeping majority and a strong mandate to govern for the next 4 years.

Sure - weak voter turn out benefitted him, But - he has to be very careful, he doesn't have a mandate to do anything he wants that's for sure. If he annoys the people they could show up in force at the next election and vote him out. Don't think he's unaware that it wasn't that he was popular, it's that the other guys sucked.

2 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

 

What a message.  As for the Liberals, well their message was received back in 2018 when the Conservatives (after losing more elections than I care to remember) finally got their act together and ran a serious campaign. 

Apparently not - they came back with more of the same bull that they tried in the past and people said "nopers"  and they got slaughtered. Same with the ndp this time,

So maybe they'll learn - no more of that hyper left wing spend spend spend crap. We'll see.

But you can't deny - they got told the hell off this election. ALL their supporters said "we'll stay home thanks", and that won't go unnoticed.

Abstaining is a legit move, always has been, built right into roberts rules and our parliamentary systems. When you vote for someone you're giving them a mandate and you're saying you support their vision.

 

[Moonbox]

8 hours ago, CdnFox said:

It makes it as truthful as your  'ridiculous' makes it not truthful  

Oh and did i make a typo? Oh dear.  what a shame your arguments have reduced you to being a grammar nazi 

I thought you'd like that, inclined as you are to quote the dictionary.  

Regardless, that's quite the typo, missing "a" by the entire length of the keyboard.  I OBSTAIN! ??

8 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Abstaining is a legit move, always has been, built right into roberts rules and our parliamentary systems. When you vote for someone you're giving them a mandate and you're saying you support their vision.

Nobody said it was illegitimate.  ?

When you vote for someone you may be saying you support their vision, or you may be saying that you're strongly against someone else's, or you may just be completely uninterested and feel your vote doesn't matter anyways. 

Thanks for your hot-take though.  As always, it was super thoughtful and well-informed.  ?

 

 

 

[eyeball]

9 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Oh and did i make a typo? Oh dear.

Again you fail to realize that when you make mistakes so consistently while insisting you're 100% correct makes you a liar.

 

[CdnFox]

11 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

I thought you'd like that, inclined as you are to quote the dictionary.  

yeah - that's more about what words mean then how they're spelled    I'd rather use a word correctly and misspell it than spell it correctly and misuse it   Food for thought when you have a minute to yourself.

11 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Regardless, that's quite the typo, missing "a" by the entire length of the keyboard.  I OBSTAIN! ??

Oh - it gets worse. I write a lot of minutes for a lot of meetings and i frequently type the word so i've REALLY got no excuse   Occasionally the dyslexia kicks in

But - hey, i'm just happy we finally found something you could be right about LOL!!

11 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Nobody said it was illegitimate.  ?

Nobody said anybody DID say that.

I just pointed out that it's a legitimate thing and it's purpose is for when you don't agree with any of the choices. (or if you feel you're not qualified to make a decision - it does have that purpose as well).

11 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

When you vote for someone you may be saying you support their vision, or you may be saying that you're strongly against someone else's, or you may just be completely uninterested and feel your vote doesn't matter anyways. 

Nope. If you vote for someone or their party - you vote FOR them. That's literally built into our language - "who did you vote FOR", not who did you vote against.

When you voted for trudeau - you endorsed his mandate and his policies and accepted his track record. That doesn't always mean you agree with EVERYTHNG but it DOES mean you agree more than you disagree and you are prepared to accept him.

That's all it means.  You voted in favor of corruption, bribery, interfering with the justice system, handing out single sourced contracts to his  buddies, as well as policies such as censorship and debt levels that will cripple at LEAST the next generation.

That's what you voted for.

11 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Thanks for your hot-take though.  As always, it was super thoughtful and well-informed.  ?

Oh lets not kid ourselves - you're FAR from qualified to be able to say if something is thoughtful or well informed

[CdnFox]

Just now, eyeball said:

Again you fail to realize that when you make mistakes so consistently while insisting you're 100% correct makes you a liar.

 

No,  a typo doesn't make people a liar   ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!! 

Also - your sentance structure is wrong.  It should be:  you fail to realize that when you make mistakes so consistently while insisting you're 100% correct it makes you a liar.

Liar.  LOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!1

Also - you know we know you're emotionally broken when you break out the cartoon characters right?  

[eyeball]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

No,  a typo doesn't make people a liar   ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!! 

That's right it's flagrantly promoting your perfection in the face of your imperfection that does that.

Quote

Also - you know we know you're emotionally broken when you break out the cartoon characters right?  

He said with a cartoon character.

It's hilarious how often you set the stage for each hypocrisy you commit in the very same breath you're pointing out someone else's idiosyncrasies.

 

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, eyeball said:

That's right it's flagrantly promoting your perfection in the face of your imperfection that does that.

Yeah -  i think those are the voices in your head talking again    I've never once suggested i'm perfect or anything close to it.

But - i get it. It's natural for someone like you who loses debates so often and is made to look foolish to think to themselves that the other person must be perfect. So you think 'I' believe that as well.

Look kid - Just because i'm smarter than you, more successful, more popular, better educated, and wittier than you doesn't make me perfect, and i don't pretend otherwise

4 minutes ago, eyeball said:

He said with a cartoon character.

 

Emojis are cartoon characters now?     I'm not going to have to explain the difference am i? You're wearing down my crayons as it is LOL

4 minutes ago, eyeball said:

It's hilarious how often you set the stage for each hypocrisy you commit in the very same breath you're pointing out someone else's idiosyncrasies.

Yeah - your english skills always deteriorate when you get angry    Calm down, you'll blow a blood vessel.  Use your words.

I understand it's upsetting to you when you try so hard to get the better of someone else and wind up looking ... well..  not too bright.  But - remember, even tho you've failed you can always try again. In fact i kind of prefer it, you're hilarious 

[eyeball]

11 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Yeah -  i think those are the voices in your head talking again    I've never once suggested i'm perfect or anything close to it.

You've certainly said you're 100% correct, which as a physicist you would would know is a ridiculous claim. Perhaps you dropped out of physics before they got around to Heisenberg.

[CdnFox]

23 minutes ago, eyeball said:

You've certainly said you're 100% correct, which as a physicist you would would know is a ridiculous claim.

I've never said that except possibly about a very specific thing   i've never suggested that i'm always 100 percent correct. It just FEELS that way to you because you're always 100 percent wrong LOL

 And no - a physicist wouldn't think that at all   But we already established you don't know anything about physics either

23 minutes ago, eyeball said:

 

Perhaps you dropped out of physics before they got around to Heisenberg.

ROFLMAO - are you trying to suggest that the uncertainty principle means nothing can be 100 percent correct?  LOL that is officially the dumbest thing i've heard in months

That's what happens when you try to educate yoruself in 5 minutes with google You don't understand any of this at all do you

[eyeball]

53 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

It just FEELS that way to you because you're always 100 percent wrong LOL

And no - a physicist wouldn't think that at all

Yes they would, it doesn't matter which way you invoke 100% certainty, Heisenberg slaps you down. They certainly wouldn't make an appeal to how they feel.

[Moonbox]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

When you voted for trudeau - you endorsed his mandate and his policies and accepted his track record.

I accepted his track record in favor of an alternative.  I chose a punch in the face instead of a kick to the nuts, where abstaining might have given me the kick to the nuts.  It doesn't mean I liked or endorse being punched in the face.  ?

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

That doesn't always mean you agree with EVERYTHNG but it DOES mean you agree more than you disagree and you are prepared to accept him.

No it doesn't, because I don't. 

You could have a decent debate about the merits of strategic voting vs abstaining, but you're so belligerent (or straight-up dumb?) that you're instead arguing which thoughts I have.  Holy crap.  ?

Edited May 11, 2023 by Moonbox

[CdnFox]

13 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Yes they would, it doesn't matter which way you invoke 100% certainty, Heisenberg slaps you down.

 

ROFLMAO - Oh god, it so doesn't   You saw the word 'uncertanty' and somehow thought that meant that there's no certainty in phyisics? LOL   holy shit are you dumb kid

[eyeball]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

ROFLMAO - Oh god, it so doesn't   You saw the word 'uncertanty' and somehow thought that meant that there's no certainty in phyisics? LOL   holy shit are you dumb kid

Feel free to prove otherwise.

You do realize the focus of physics is everything right?

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Feel free to prove otherwise.

Sure - Of course i can't prove a negative so explain your position as to why you think the Heisenberg uncertainty principle means there's no such thing as certainty and i'll point out why you're wrong

THis aught to be good for a laugh   (Fetches popcorn)

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Sure - Of course i can't prove a negative so explain your position as to why you think the Heisenberg uncertainty principle means there's no such thing as certainty and i'll point out why you're wrong

THis aught to be good for a laugh   (Fetches popcorn)

It simply means there's no such thing as 100% certainty.

Watching you try to prove otherwise should be typically painful.

[CdnFox]

13 minutes ago, eyeball said:

It simply means there's no such thing as 100% certainty.

ROFLMAO - holy shit kid - you can google better than that !

So - pretty easy to prove you wrong then. The heisenberg uncertainty principle simply says you can't know ALL the information about a particle before measurement at the same time. It has absolutely nothing to do with knowing things 100 percent - in fact you CAN know any ONE measurement with precision 100 percent. Just not all of them.  And that ceases to be true once measurement is taken and the waveform collapses.

Thanks for confirming you're an uneducated !diot

13 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Watching you try to prove otherwise should be typically painful.

Just did - easiest thing in the world

It's like listening to a child explain how santa is real I"m just smiling and nodding at you

Btw - i'm going to be bugging you about being the guy who thinks the Uncertainty Principle actually means we can't be sure about anything ROFLMAO!!

Edited May 11, 2023 by CdnFox

[eyeball]

17 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Btw - i'm going to be bugging you about being the guy who thinks the Uncertainty Principle actually means we can't be sure about anything ROFLMAO!!

And thereby proving you're the only individual in the universe who is?

Good job, you just put yourself on par with God.

Edited May 11, 2023 by eyeball

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, eyeball said:

And thereby proving you're the only individual in the universe who does.

Good job, you just put yourself on par with God.

Everyone in the universe does except you

And now i'm god! - wow, i knew you keep saying i'm perfect but i didn't realize you thought i was THAT far above you

I'm not really god tho. I just seem that way to you, for the same reason a human would seem like 'god' to a dung beetle.

[blackbird]

47 minutes ago, eyeball said:

It simply means there's no such thing as 100% certainty.

There are some things that are 100% certain:-  God, his written revelation, the Holy Bible, and death followed by judgment.  see Hebrew 9:27 KJV   Never say you were not warned.

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, blackbird said:

There are some things that are 100% certain:-  God, his written revelation, the Holy Bible, and death followed by judgment.  see Hebrew 9:27 KJV   Never say you were not warned.

Death, anyway.

[CdnFox]

22 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Death, anyway.

That's a helluva thing to say this close to Easter